Wickliffe v. Swarthout et al
Filing
21
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/14/16 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. F&R referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ERIC WICKLIFFE,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2172 MCE DB P
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GARY SWARTHOUT, et al.,
15
Respondents.
16
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
17
18
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 11, 2016, the court dismissed the petition and gave
19
petitioner thirty days to present his claim in a civil rights action. 1 Petitioner was warned that his
20
failure to file a civil rights action or otherwise respond to the court’s order would “result in a
21
////
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
The court also informed petitioner that if he intended to proceed with a civil rights action, he
would have to “[s]how cause why the civil rights complaint should not be subject to dismissal
because petitioner is a member of the plaintiff class in Gilman v. Brown, 814 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir.
2016).” The court noted that there were two bases for dismissal. First, “[m]embers of the Gilman
class ‘may not maintain a separate, individual suit for equitable relief involving the same subject
matter of the class action.’ See Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 892-93 (9th Cir. 1979); see also
McNeil v. Guthrie, 945 F.2d 1163,1165 (10th Cir. 1991); Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103
(5th Cir. 1988) (en banc).” Second, “the Ninth Circuit in Gilman held that the increase in length of
time before subsequent parole suitability hearings did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Gilman v.
Brown, 814 F.3d 1007, 1021 (9th Cir. 2016).” (ECF No. 20 at 3.)
28
1
1
recommendation that his action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
2
and Local Rule 110.” Petitioner has not responded in any way to the court’s October 11 order.
3
Pursuant to Rule 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action “for failure to comply with
4
any order of the court.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also E.D.
5
Cal. R. 110. Petitioner was advised in the October 11 order that his failure to respond to the
6
court’s order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
7
8
9
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without
prejudice.
These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
10
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
11
after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written
12
objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's
13
Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the
14
specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v.
15
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
16
Dated: December 14, 2016
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DLB:9
DLB1/prisoner-habeas/wick2172.fr
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?